Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 15:37:12 GMT -5
Seriously, can anyone imagine a situation described above where a team would lose a point and another be awarded a point? This can't be an accurate description, right?
The only thing I can think of us is they thought the libero switch was wrong, maybe the libero even served. Otherwise, how does ISU score a point and then they take it away and give it to TT?
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Nov 26, 2014 15:43:32 GMT -5
It'll feel just like in Lubbock. Hey..............Buddy Holley and the Crickets are from there. Ungratefull.................all of YOU!
|
|
|
Post by iowastategirl on Nov 26, 2014 15:54:37 GMT -5
CJL made the right move, and the right move for her team. I don't think anyone questions why she did it, and I would in fact argue she had a duty to her team to advocate for them as much as possible. It's just odd in the grand scheme of things, as pretty much every team has had unfortunate rulings against them but I can't think of anyone else getting a second chance....a month later...at home to replay things. Generally, when you walk off the court, it's over, and that's what we've come to expect as sports fans. But we just have to accept that in volleyball not all calls are created equal. You're still calling this a "call." I still think that's where you're being led in the wrong direction. How often are rules misapplied and not rectified? I don't know the answer, but that's the better question. Right? You make a good point in that this wasn't a bad "call." An error was made with a substitution and the ref applied a rule incorrectly. What should have just been a warning was treated as a penalty. Hence the loss of the point. If a rule book had been handy they could have easily corrected this courtside - both of which should have been done. CJL did the right thing by making the protest, she does well with understanding the rules. Which is why she made the protest at the time that the misapplication was made (which in of itself is a rule). While yes, it was an awkward situation, I think the correct actions were taken. They did the best they could to allow for neutrality for both teams in the resumption of the game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 16:06:55 GMT -5
Part of this whole fiasco was that in addition to Tech being awarded a point, a point was ALSO deducted from Iowa State. So instead of 8-5, the set was restarted at 9-4 after the crossover. The error (misapplication of a rule) incorrectly resulted in Iowa State being down by 5 instead of down by 3. That's a big swing, especially in the fifth set. And yes, it will be played in an empty gym. No fans, band, cheerleaders, or even PA announcer. Just teams, officials, and necessary game operations personnel. The rotations and lineups will be the same as they were at the point of interruption -- just like a resumed baseball game. For the record, this is where I'm getting the 5-8 to 4-9 info.
|
|
|
Post by cowgirl836 on Nov 26, 2014 16:23:28 GMT -5
Here is the link to the ISU live blog from that game. I didn't re-read all of the fifth set but the conjecture at the time was that ISU made an illegal sub earlier in the rotation. I think Ruffda has the right idea. 5th set starts around 12:00. Nolan served at 12:05 which about lines up with later comments about the incident happening 4 points prior to the officials noticing it. www.cyclones.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205174735
|
|
|
Post by hebrooks87 on Nov 26, 2014 16:38:16 GMT -5
Seriously, can anyone imagine a situation described above where a team would lose a point and another be awarded a point? This can't be an accurate description, right? The only thing I can think of us is they thought the libero switch was wrong, maybe the libero even served. Otherwise, how does ISU score a point and then they take it away and give it to TT? I can imagine the scenario where the point really wasn't taken away; it was never legally scored. If I'm R2 and my scorer tells me after R1 has beckoned for serve that we have a lineup problem, I'll let the rally play out. After the rally (and after a point has apparently been scored by team A, say), I'd alert my partner that I need to deal with a problem at the table. If I verify that there was an incorrect player on Team A, that point never occurred. Assess the fault on team A (point to team B). Even though the scoreboard and play-by-play might show point 5 having been scored by team A, it hadn't been scored, so we go from 8-4 to 9-4.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 17:00:49 GMT -5
OK. From the blog:
Horner-Capezio-Bigbee-Knuth-Nolan-Berta is opening service order. Either this is wrong, or they serve out of order.
Horner serves, Tech scores 0-1, ISU sides out 1-1 Capezio serves (Vondrak for Berta), Tech scores 1-2, then serves to 1-3 NOLAN then serves at 2-3 (Conaway in?), Tech sides out 2-4 Goetz serves for Bigbee at 3-4, Tech sides out 3-5, 3-6 ISU timeout Vondrak serves at 4-6, Tech sides out 4-7, then 4-8 and side switch Blog says "out of rotation at the moment with Goetz in the back row" Timeout ISU Ball handling error on Tech 5-8, Kuhrt to serve for Conaway
Then confusion and 4-9, Tech serves
This makes no sense. ISU has to have the wrong players on the court at 4-8.
I have to go. Maybe someone else can figure this out.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Nov 26, 2014 17:08:25 GMT -5
OK,here is what occurred from a better than reliable source. ISU protested the match believing there was a rule misinterpretation that lead to a loss of point. The head official said it wasnt something that could be protested. After the match and teams were gone. Tech AD contacted Big 12 head of officials who immediately ruled it was. The AD's and league decided to rule the match a ""no-contest unless it meant something in conference standings. It was actually a couple of other league teams who wanted the match played as they felt if ISU doesnt have the loss, they could possibly bump their teams from getting a seed or some similar disadvantage to them. The league then ruled it had to be played under the conditions that we are all aware of, at ISU but with no crowd. So in summary, ISU did protest the match, league and both schools agreed to no-contest, other teams didnt like how that could possibly impact them, and pushed the league to make them complete the match.
|
|
|
Post by cowgirl836 on Nov 26, 2014 17:13:43 GMT -5
OK,here is what occurred from a better than reliable source. ISU protested the match believing there was a rule misinterpretation that lead to a loss of point. The head official said it wasnt something that could be protested. After the match and teams were gone. Tech AD contacted Big 12 head of officials who immediately ruled it was. The AD's and league decided to rule the match a ""no-contest unless it meant something in conference standings. It was actually a couple of other league teams who wanted the match played as they felt if ISU doesnt have the loss, they could possibly bump their teams from getting a seed or some similar disadvantage to them. The league then ruled it had to be played under the conditions that we are all aware of, at ISU but with no crowd. So in summary, ISU did protest the match, league and both schools agreed to no-contest, other teams didnt like how that could possibly impact them, and pushed the league to make them complete the match. very interesting. Thank you for the further information.
|
|
|
Post by trollhunter on Nov 26, 2014 17:17:56 GMT -5
OK. From the blog: Horner-Capezio-Bigbee-Knuth-Nolan-Berta is opening service order. Either this is wrong, or they serve out of order. Horner serves, Tech scores 0-1, ISU sides out 1-1 Capezio serves (Vondrak for Berta), Tech scores 1-2, then serves to 1-3 NOLAN then serves at 2-3 (Conaway in?), Tech sides out 2-4 Goetz serves for Bigbee at 3-4, Tech sides out 3-5, 3-6 ISU timeout Vondrak serves at 4-6, Tech sides out 4-7, then 4-8 and side switch Blog says "out of rotation at the moment with Goetz in the back row" Timeout ISU Ball handling error on Tech 5-8, Kuhrt to serve for Conaway Then confusion and 4-9, Tech serves This makes no sense. ISU has to have the wrong players on the court at 4-8. I have to go. Maybe someone else can figure this out. Texas Tech has play by play live stats still online via GameTracker. Perhaps someone can use GT and the blog to find out exactly what happened. I'm also busy for next couple days so can't do it.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 26, 2014 17:19:47 GMT -5
Thanks for that live blog link. From that play-by-play, here's what I think could have happened...
• Iowa State scores to take an 8-4 lead, teams switch sides • Ball-handling error on TTU, score is 8-5 TTU (for now) • Kuhrt tries to sub in for Conaway ---see below • After a lengthy delay, TTU serves with the score 9-4
The only thing that makes sense to me is that the scorekeeper didn't have Conaway in the game. Often times as scorekeeper, you certainly pay attention to when players enter and exit the game (via sub) or when players serve, but otherwise probably wouldn't notice a player on the court that isn't in the lineup. So when Conaway tries to sub out, at THAT point he/she realizes that she wasn't in the lineup and thus was an illegal player. Since she was on the court for the previous rally (the BHE on TTU), they give that point to TTU making it 9-4.
Obviously, since the protest was upheld, it would appear that Conaway was actually in the game correctly.
Edit: The Gametracker play-by-play supports this as a possibility since the ISU server was the same before and after the incident. Also, it's worth noting that at the beginning of the set, #16 Branen Berta was subbed out of the game. Perhaps the R2 and/or the scorekeeper missed the first digit and recorded this as #6 Conaway subbing out?
|
|
|
Post by cowgirl836 on Nov 26, 2014 17:30:29 GMT -5
OK. From the blog: Horner-Capezio-Bigbee-Knuth-Nolan-Berta is opening service order. Either this is wrong, or they serve out of order. Horner serves, Tech scores 0-1, ISU sides out 1-1 Capezio serves (Vondrak for Berta), Tech scores 1-2, then serves to 1-3 NOLAN then serves at 2-3 (Conaway in?), Tech sides out 2-4 Goetz serves for Bigbee at 3-4, Tech sides out 3-5, 3-6 ISU timeout Vondrak serves at 4-6, Tech sides out 4-7, then 4-8 and side switch Blog says "out of rotation at the moment with Goetz in the back row" Timeout ISU Ball handling error on Tech 5-8, Kuhrt to serve for Conaway Then confusion and 4-9, Tech serves This makes no sense. ISU has to have the wrong players on the court at 4-8. I have to go. Maybe someone else can figure this out. Texas Tech has play by play live stats still online via GameTracker. Perhaps someone can use GT and the blog to find out exactly what happened. I'm also busy for next couple days so can't do it. not sure if I'm missing something, but Gametracker never shows the set being 9-4 and has it ending at 13-14 Tech in the play by play, shows Tech winning 15-12 at the top though. Almost like it was modified after the fact. www.texastech.com/gametracker/launch/gt_wvolley.html?event=1346080&school=text&sport=wvolley&camefrom=&startschool=&
|
|
isu40
Sophomore
Posts: 145
|
Post by isu40 on Nov 26, 2014 17:32:28 GMT -5
OK. From the blog: Horner-Capezio-Bigbee-Knuth-Nolan-Berta is opening service order. Either this is wrong, or they serve out of order. Horner serves, Tech scores 0-1, ISU sides out 1-1 Capezio serves (Vondrak for Berta), Tech scores 1-2, then serves to 1-3 NOLAN then serves at 2-3 (Conaway in?), Tech sides out 2-4 Goetz serves for Bigbee at 3-4, Tech sides out 3-5, 3-6 ISU timeout Vondrak serves at 4-6, Tech sides out 4-7, then 4-8 and side switch Blog says "out of rotation at the moment with Goetz in the back row" Timeout ISU Ball handling error on Tech 5-8, Kuhrt to serve for Conaway Then confusion and 4-9, Tech serves This makes no sense. ISU has to have the wrong players on the court at 4-8. I have to go. Maybe someone else can figure this out. Horner and Bigbee always are opposite as are Nolan and Knuth.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Nov 26, 2014 17:58:38 GMT -5
I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't consider Gametracker as an infallible source.
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Nov 26, 2014 18:02:17 GMT -5
I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't consider Gametracker as an infallible source. Quite the opposite. It's definitely fallible!
|
|